Abiltity To Name Specific Mistakes

[CV75]

Not sure each of these is a great fit for an formal apology and acknowledgement but these certainly are things that the majority of members in my ward would be unclear on and still believe false ideas that the church in many ways have kept or allowed false ideas and beliefs to continue.

The Lord and His servants do not control belief. No matter what other ideas may be circulating, the Lord is readily available to those who will seek Him and then believe in Him (see D&C 76:51 and surrounding verses). D&C 76:110 shows how certain works still far outweigh any refusal to believe in Him.

 

No other idea is so incorrect or so damaging that it can detract from the Lord unless we want it to. People are imperfect, yet the Spirit bears witness to them and they join the Church. The members are imperfect, and yet the Spirit continues to bear witness. Somehow, amidst all the “problems” listed in this thread, the Spirit still draws people into such a Church, and they stay. It really doesn’t matter what non-essential belief they may hold onto.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'll give you that.  I could reword that to say that the church has changed its stance on gay thoughts/desires being sin.

If you are saying that the Church formerly held that merely having SSA is in itself a sin, I challenge you on it. I don't believe the Church ever did teach that. I will call for references on that.

 

If you are saying that the Church now holds that it is not sinful for gay persons to dwell on and fantasize about sexual thoughts and desires, I think you would be wrong there as well. Gay persons don't get a free pass on what would be regarded as sinful on the part of heterosexual persons. I'm alluding here to Christ's teaching about lust amounting to committing adultery already in one's heart.

[Bob Crockett]

The book as a whole set up some opinions as doctrine that when members discover their "truth" doesn't mesh with certain claims of the book, they feel the Church must not be true if they have to believe X,Y, & Z.  Until they feel they are free to discard many of the book's claims there cen be unneeded tension between what they believe and what they think they are being asked to believe.

Can you be more specific than "X, Y and Z?"  I mean the title of this thread talks about specific things.

 

Mormon Doctrine is still frequently cited in General Conference.

 

It is quite a regular thing for critics of the Church to point to Mormon Doctrine as a way to browbeat the Brethren for errors.  But, in truth of fact, it went through a type of correlation of its day.   Although it was improperly rushed to print for the first edition, subsequent editions were corrected after the Brethren reviewed it and commented upon it.  

 

So I wonder if one were to look at the most popular edition now in circulation (I think it is no longer published), what particular error has led members astray?   I think that Elder McConkie states in the book that he does not believe that man evolved from a lower species, but the Church has never taken a position on that one way or the other.  And I wonder how expressing an opinion on such thing would lead members astray.  Elder McConkie could easily be right.

 

He also spoke about blacks and the priesthood; he might have been right, or wrong.  (This may be the closest thing to being an error, as he discussed it later; but I am still uncertain.)  One cannot tell as there is no answer to this question.  So it would be great if you pointed to something wrong where there is an answer.

 

So, any examples?  I rather like the book.

Edited November 6, 2013 by Bob Crockett

[wenglund]

Is there a bottom to the ark-steadying well?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Bob Crockett]

Is there a bottom to the ark-steadying well?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Now, now.  If there weren't ark-steadying on this forum there would be little to say, much less defend.

[rockpond]

The Lord and His servants do not control belief. No matter what other ideas may be circulating, the Lord is readily available to those who will seek Him and then believe in Him (see D&C 76:51 and surrounding verses). D&C 76:110 shows how certain works still far outweigh any refusal to believe in Him.

 

No other idea is so incorrect or so damaging that it can detract from the Lord unless we want it to. People are imperfect, yet the Spirit bears witness to them and they join the Church. The members are imperfect, and yet the Spirit continues to bear witness. Somehow, amidst all the “problems” listed in this thread, the Spirit still draws people into such a Church, and they stay. It really doesn’t matter what non-essential belief they may hold onto.

 

I agree with this sentiment in principle.  But, in practice we're seeing subgroups of members forming with voices outside of church leadership (but still within the church) speaking to those members... Givens, Dehlin, Brooks, etc.  I feel like we're watching church membership divide up, often over these types of issues/questions and the interpretations being drawn.  I think that the recent Joni Hilton article highlighted one such division between what some would call "TBM's" and "Liberal Mormons".

 

For me, I see the biggest threat to church growth not coming from critics outside the church but from divisions within the church membership.  And I acknowledge that your response above... kinda what I'd consider a "stay the course" approach... may be the best way to go.  But there might also be some other thoughts that should be considered, like Bill's thought as the OP of this thread.

 

Other thoughts?

[Scott Lloyd]

Is there a bottom to the ark-steadying well?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Are you kidding? Ark-steadying is the very essence of this thread.

[wenglund]

Are you kidding? Ark-steadying is the very essence of this thread.

 

...and most, if not all, threads started by DBMormon. LOL  I wonder why?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 6, 2013 by wenglund

[rockpond]

...and most, if not all, threads started by DBMormon. LOL  I wonder why?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Last I checked, the church belonged to all of us.  Further these issues and the subject matter of this thread have direct impact on people within my stewardship as is likely the case for many participants here.  I don't see it as ark-steadying.

[Scott Lloyd]

Last I checked, the church belonged to all of us. 

 

Only in the sense of our being a body of believers. In point of fact, the Church belongs to Jesus Christ, and all things therein must be done with His blessing and approbation. None of us has the right to usurp authority or agitate for change outside the channels that He has established through revelation.

[wenglund]

Last I checked, the church belonged to all of us.  Further these issues and the subject matter of this thread have direct impact on people within my stewardship as is likely the case for many participants here.  I don't see it as ark-steadying.

 

I am not surprised. It is doubtful that anyone who believe that the Church is there's rather than Christ's (even though it bears his name rather than their's) would see it as ark-steadying. Busy-bodies don't view themselves as such when they think everyone's business is their's.

 

But, this is beside the point of the thread, and so I shant say more, and will leave you and others to mind the business of Church leaders as you see fit.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

You are out of the thread for relentless board nannying.

[Bob Crockett]

Busy-bodies don't view themselves as such when they think everyone's business is their's.

To be fair to DBMormon, we ought to have him say what needs to be done to correct these errors, even if he doesn't really want to be specific about them.  (Well, there are a few he discusses above.)  What is it he suggests is the remedy?  The remedy may or may not be ark-steadying. Generally talking about the "errors" on public boards isn't much ark steadying.  Signing petitions to the Brethren would be ark-steadying.  

[rockpond]

Only in the sense of our being a body of believers. In point of fact, the Church belongs to Jesus Christ, and all things therein must be done with His blessing and approbation. None of us has the right to usurp authority or agitate for change outside the channels that He has established through revelation.

 

 

I am not surprised. It is doubtful that anyone who believe that the Church is there's rather than Christ's (even though it bears his name rather than their's) would see it as ark-steadying. Busy-bodies don't view themselves as such when they think everyone's business is their's.

 

But, this is beside the point of the thread, and so I shant say more, and will leave you and others to mind the business of Church leaders as you see fit.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

I was speaking in the sense of our being a body of believers.  We sustain one another in our respective callings.  And one who is today sustaining a leader, may tomorrow be sustained as a leader.  And vice versa.

 

And, as I said, where each of us has stewardship it is not ark-steadying to discuss how we might better serve those for whom we have that responsibility.

 

As I noted in my earlier post (#106)... we can stand by and let other voices come forward to discuss these issues.  If that's your answer, I respect it as I feel that some of those other voices are doing good work.  But I don't see the "stop steadying the ark" mantra as one that helps the situation much.

[Tacenda]

I think people, like DBMormon, want to put Christ back into the Church, most of all.  Just for those that tend to become a little on the pharisaical side.  That's what the so called Liberals in our church do also, notice how they want to include everyone, like the gays?  They usually don't like the obedience to authority so much, but to their God and moral compass.  They maybe have a calling but if they don't maybe they're doing so much that no one ever sees.  Not saying this for all of them.  That's my take on it, or my .02 cents worth.    

[Bob Crockett]

I think people, like DBMormon, want to put Christ back into the Church, most of all.  Just for those that tend to become a little on the pharisaical side.  That's what the so called Liberals in our church do also, notice how they want to include everyone, like the gays?  They usually don't like the obedience to authority so much, but to their God and moral compass.  They maybe have a calling but if they don't maybe they're doing so much that no one ever sees.  Not saying this for all of them.  That's my take on it, or my .02 cents worth.    

Of course you are correct.   But I see it as a continuum.   One one side you have members who err by their officious assumption of pharisical authority and fawning authority worship; on the other side you have fault-finders of the Brethren and those who think commandment-keeping isn't for them or their friends.   Pick your poison.

[CV75]

I agree with this sentiment in principle.  But, in practice we're seeing subgroups of members forming with voices outside of church leadership (but still within the church) speaking to those members... Givens, Dehlin, Brooks, etc.  I feel like we're watching church membership divide up, often over these types of issues/questions and the interpretations being drawn.  I think that the recent Joni Hilton article highlighted one such division between what some would call "TBM's" and "Liberal Mormons".

 

For me, I see the biggest threat to church growth not coming from critics outside the church but from divisions within the church membership.  And I acknowledge that your response above... kinda what I'd consider a "stay the course" approach... may be the best way to go.  But there might also be some other thoughts that should be considered, like Bill's thought as the OP of this thread.

 

Other thoughts?

Regarding the OP in relation to enmity between subgroups in the Church, I would think that those who lead in identifying and discussing mistakes for the sake of strengthening feeble knees would advise their hearers against enmity. Church leadership had always encouraged the members not to contend, and they are certainly in the business of strengthening feeble knees (and with a much broader portfolio and approach).

 

Members have access to both sources and kinds of teaching, and avoiding contention is their personal responsibility regardless of what they are encouraged to do or believe, and by whom. I have found that members generally put more of their wherewithal into finding ways to serve each other than into defining themselves as a subgroup that thinks differently from others to the point of contention. The Holy Spirit is a wonderful Gift.

[Scott Lloyd]

To be fair to DBMormon, we ought to have him say what needs to be done to correct these errors, even if he doesn't really want to be specific about them.  (Well, there are a few he discusses above.)  What is it he suggests is the remedy?  The remedy may or may not be ark-steadying. Generally talking about the "errors" on public boards isn't much ark steadying.  Signing petitions to the Brethren would be ark-steadying.  

In the sense that Internet board chatter and petition drives are each a potentially influential part of the public debate, they are not all that different.

[rockpond]

Regarding the OP in relation to enmity between subgroups in the Church, I would think that those who lead in identifying and discussing mistakes for the sake of strengthening feeble knees would advise their hearers against enmity.

 

My experience is that they do advise against enmity.

 

I have found that members generally put more of their wherewithal into finding ways to serve each other than into defining themselves as a subgroup that thinks differently from others to the point of contention. The Holy Spirit is a wonderful Gift.

 

That has certainly been my experience in my ward.  I know that there are members who feel "disenfranchised" (for lack of a better word) and still serve & worship faithfully.  Without contention.  But then there are those who discover challenging issues, feel betrayed, and walk away.  I know because I almost was one of them a few years back.

 

I like the trend that I am see coming from both within the leadership and without in facing the challenging issues of our beliefs/history in a faith promoting manner.  I think that's what Bill (the OP) is asking for here is to continue to push forward along that path.  But I could be mistaken.

Edited November 6, 2013 by rockpond

[Bob Crockett]

In the sense that Internet board chatter and petition drives are each a potentially influential part of the public debate, they are not all that different.

You're right.  However, the difference between DBMormon's threads in this forum and what FAIR publishes seems rather small.  I have stated my reservations to DBMormon's threads for reasons other than ark-steadying, which statements have landed me in hot water here and put me on the edge of the outs, but I think ark-steadying isn't all that serious a problem.  Ninety percent of threads would thus qualify as ark-steadying.  Listening to DBMormon's podcasts, it is clear that he is legitimately attempting to respond to concerns people have expressed to him or perhaps which he himself has had in the past.   I applaud his energy and enthusiasm.  I would very much like to hear him describe some remedies rather than speak about the problem.  What kind of remedy is there, other than operate a FAIR-type website?   I mean, a petition to the Church would be unseemly.

[Bob Crockett]

I like the trend that I am see coming from both within the leadership and without in facing the challenging issues of our beliefs/history in a faith promoting manner.  I think that what Bill (the OP) is asking for here is to continue to push forward along that path.  But I could be mistaken.

And so I ask, "how?"  The Church is not structured to receive petitions or requests from the bottom up to change its curriculum or the statements of general authorities.  

 

The Church's curriculum department listens to and respects academics (FARMS, Claremont, the Joseph Smith Papers) where academics weigh in on issues and identify them.  These organizations have tackled much of what DBMormon finds to be problematic and there have been adjustments (the ancestors thing in the title page of the Book of Mormon).   

 

But what else can be done?  If DBMormon thinks that Mormon Doctrine has been deceptive and has led members astray, what is the remedy?

Edited November 6, 2013 by Bob Crockett

[Senator]

...and most, if not all, threads started by DBMormon. LOL  I wonder why?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Have you at last been shamed in silence, DBMormon?

[Scott Lloyd]

You're right.  However, the difference between DBMormon's threads in this forum and what FAIR publishes seems rather small.  I have stated my reservations to DBMormon's threads for reasons other than ark-steadying, which statements have landed me in hot water here and put me on the edge of the outs, but I think ark-steadying isn't all that serious a problem.  Ninety percent of threads would thus qualify as ark-steadying.  Listening to DBMormon's podcasts, it is clear that he is legitimately attempting to respond to concerns people have expressed to him or perhaps which he himself has had in the past.   I applaud his energy and enthusiasm.  I would very much like to hear him describe some remedies rather than speak about the problem.  What kind of remedy is there, other than operate a FAIR-type website?   I mean, a petition to the Church would be unseemly.

Whatever might be said about the FairMormon organization, it has never occurred to me that it is ark-steadying or anything comparable thereto.

 

What a strange notion.

Edited November 6, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

And so I ask, "how?"  The Church is not structured to receive petitions or requests from the bottom up to change its curriculum or the statements of general authorities.  

 

The Church's curriculum department listens to and respects academics (FARMS, Claremont, the Joseph Smith Papers) where academics weigh in on issues and identify them.  These organizations have tackled much of what DBMormon finds to be problematic and there have been adjustments (the ancestors thing in the title page of the Book of Mormon).   

 

But what else can be done?  If DBMormon thinks that Mormon Doctrine has been deceptive and has led members astray, what is the remedy?

 

How?...

 

I think that the JS Papers Project is a great way.  I believe that will help.

 

As for FARMS... I tried them during my faith crisis but never felt like they helped much.  I'm sure that there are those who they have helped.

 

I think that *not* naming active faithful members (who are trying to address these issues) as "critics" would also help.

 

Givens, Bushman, Prince, Dehlin, Brooks, Reel, and others seem to be doing good work outside of the church leadership structure.  Do we find a way to give them a stronger voice?

 

But, mostly, I am trying to consider this on the local level... my local level.  Is there a way we could address this stuff as sacrament meeting topics?  Gospel doctrine classes?  Firesides?  High Council talks?

 

I'm not entirely sure -- I often look to these boards hoping to get ideas on how we could better address the issues in my ward/stake.

[Scott Lloyd]

But, mostly, I am trying to consider this on the local level... my local level.  Is there a way we could address this stuff as sacrament meeting topics?  Gospel doctrine classes?  Firesides?  High Council talks?

 

I'm not entirely sure -- I often look to these boards hoping to get ideas on how we could better address the issues in my ward/stake.

It would be entirely outside your province to include content in gospel doctrine classes, devotionals, high council talks, etc. to the effect, for example, that the pre-1978 restriction on the priesthood was a "mistake" that the Church should apologize for.

[rockpond]

It would be entirely outside your province to include content in gospel doctrine classes, devotionals, high council talks, etc. to the effect, for example, that the pre-1978 restriction on the priesthood was a "mistake" that the Church should apologize for.

 

Of course.  I wasn't suggesting that anyone stand up, in those forums, and say "_______ is a mistake that the church should apologize for".  I was only suggesting that maybe we make those challenging topics a matter of discussion.  Warts and all, in a way that will strengthen and, hopefully, prevent future faith crises while not causing new ones.  Which is, in my mind, the big challenge.